With families, it seems to be the case that adults can refuse to join or form families for whatever reason they like; this takes precedence over antidiscrimination. Things are a little different with people born into families or adopted as children (we don't really do adult adoption in this country, do we?) but even then, giving up children for adoption is a thing. OTOH, disowning a child I think is seen as rather more dramatic - condemnable in a wider range of circumstances - than getting divorced, and getting divorced as far more dramatic than not getting married in the first place.
With companies, there is some antidiscrimination in place; direct discrimination is disallowed, also there is some restriction on indirect discrimination, but it's not total. Companies are allowed, for example, to insist on particular skills, even if the presence of those skills is correlated with protected characteristics[1], if there is a bona fide occupational requirement. A lot of people think of immigration policy in the same light; they want to let in people who have the right skills etc.
(Aha, I see an edit to add "Certainly to be consistent you'd have to apply the tests to people who were (otherwise) born into citizenship as well as those who relocated into it")
One test in current use is the "would otherwise be stateless" test; if this test isn't allowed, and it's not OK for people to be left stateless, then the only remaining option is to allow citizenship on demand. "Would otherwise be stateless" correlates remarkably well, I think, with a lot of the citizenship by birthright that already applies; it would certainly have applied to me.
I brought up private property because in a sense, a lot of this is to do with property. With my citizenship comes a sort-of share in the national wealth - in the form of everything from protection from foreign armies through to easy access to Medieval ruins, and in particular access to well-paying employers. I think a lot of anti-immigration sentiment is to do with controlling access to that wealth - see the common complaints about immigrants taking people's jobs or being on benefits. Also I suspect that a lot of the benefits of open borders would come precisely from spreading that wealth.
[1] Note Meehl's observation that in "soft" fields everything is correlated with everything else.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2015-07-03 03:26 pm (UTC)With families, it seems to be the case that adults can refuse to join or form families for whatever reason they like; this takes precedence over antidiscrimination. Things are a little different with people born into families or adopted as children (we don't really do adult adoption in this country, do we?) but even then, giving up children for adoption is a thing. OTOH, disowning a child I think is seen as rather more dramatic - condemnable in a wider range of circumstances - than getting divorced, and getting divorced as far more dramatic than not getting married in the first place.
With companies, there is some antidiscrimination in place; direct discrimination is disallowed, also there is some restriction on indirect discrimination, but it's not total. Companies are allowed, for example, to insist on particular skills, even if the presence of those skills is correlated with protected characteristics[1], if there is a bona fide occupational requirement. A lot of people think of immigration policy in the same light; they want to let in people who have the right skills etc.
(Aha, I see an edit to add "Certainly to be consistent you'd have to apply the tests to people who were (otherwise) born into citizenship as well as those who relocated into it")
One test in current use is the "would otherwise be stateless" test; if this test isn't allowed, and it's not OK for people to be left stateless, then the only remaining option is to allow citizenship on demand. "Would otherwise be stateless" correlates remarkably well, I think, with a lot of the citizenship by birthright that already applies; it would certainly have applied to me.
I brought up private property because in a sense, a lot of this is to do with property. With my citizenship comes a sort-of share in the national wealth - in the form of everything from protection from foreign armies through to easy access to Medieval ruins, and in particular access to well-paying employers. I think a lot of anti-immigration sentiment is to do with controlling access to that wealth - see the common complaints about immigrants taking people's jobs or being on benefits. Also I suspect that a lot of the benefits of open borders would come precisely from spreading that wealth.
[1] Note Meehl's observation that in "soft" fields everything is correlated with everything else.